4 ms·

> So a reaction to what was itself once the challenger and is now the incumbent seems reasonable. I agree with everything you've said, but would just point out

> So a reaction to what was itself once the challenger and is now the incumbent seems reasonable. I agree with everything you've said, but would just point out that the pendulum has perhaps started swinging in the other direction: a lot of folks in the design world are starting to push back against the associated minimalist/functionalist aesthetic that has taken over much of the world: it can make our built environments feel sterile, boring, and robotic.

throwanem 3y ago
Yeah, I get that, although I'm not sure if functionalistic design is only to blame; I'd look also to a culture of disposability that inculcates the idea that if something isn't or ceases to be fully satisfactory as received from the factory, the way to address that is by throwing it out and buying something else, rather than fixing or modifying it to better suit the need. Design is meant to exist in conversation with culture, and after such a long time developing a society that revolves around consumption I think that meaning has been lost. "Right to repair" is a partial reaction to this also, and valuable as such, but what I really want to see is a swing back in the direction of the idea that made things can and should be made to last - not as perfect, impenetrable monoliths of capital-D Design, but as longstanding participants in the lives of the people with whom they're surrounded, and which can be and are changed by those people to better meet the needs of the day and year and decade. That isn't something the money power has any incentive to want these days, of course; every thing that need not be replaced today is a thing for which no replacement will be bought or sold today. But this is not a novel problem, and it has been solved before.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Exactly. The removal of user modification from culture is a big loss. In the 90s, it was nothing to stitch a patch on a piece of clothing that made it uniquely yours, or artfully distress your jeans. Now, people just... don't. Because they can buy them like that. Great for consumerism. Less great for individuality and building self-reliance.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
This product isn't any less sterile, boring and robotic. Just the opposite. It's ostentatiously sterile, boring and robotic. While also being retro, and trying very hard to look like something that might have appeared in the original Matrix movie - which was 24 years ago. Visually, it's unoriginal, which is an unforgivable design sin - literally a stock laplet with pointless metal bits stuck on which will get in the way if you're trying to use it seriously. It fails as fashion because it looks like a mess, neither cool, exotic, nor aspirational. And it fails as design because while it's - perhaps - trying to be ironic, it takes itself too seriously to be funny. And it's just not very functional.

throwanem 3y ago

Yeah, I get that, although I'm not sure if functionalistic design is only to blame; I'd look also to a culture of disposability that inculcates the idea that if something isn't or ceases to be fully satisfactory as received from the factory, the way to address that is by throwing it out and buying something else, rather than fixing or modifying it to better suit the need. Design is meant to exist in conversation with culture, and after such a long time developing a society that revolves around consumption I think that meaning has been lost. "Right to repair" is a partial reaction to this also, and valuable as such, but what I really want to see is a swing back in the direction of the idea that made things can and should be made to last - not as perfect, impenetrable monoliths of capital-D Design, but as longstanding participants in the lives of the people with whom they're surrounded, and which can be and are changed by those people to better meet the needs of the day and year and decade. That isn't something the money power has any incentive to want these days, of course; every thing that need not be replaced today is a thing for which no replacement will be bought or sold today. But this is not a novel problem, and it has been solved before.

ethbr1 3y ago
Exactly. The removal of user modification from culture is a big loss. In the 90s, it was nothing to stitch a patch on a piece of clothing that made it uniquely yours, or artfully distress your jeans. Now, people just... don't. Because they can buy them like that. Great for consumerism. Less great for individuality and building self-reliance.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

This product isn't any less sterile, boring and robotic. Just the opposite. It's ostentatiously sterile, boring and robotic. While also being retro, and trying very hard to look like something that might have appeared in the original Matrix movie - which was 24 years ago. Visually, it's unoriginal, which is an unforgivable design sin - literally a stock laplet with pointless metal bits stuck on which will get in the way if you're trying to use it seriously. It fails as fashion because it looks like a mess, neither cool, exotic, nor aspirational. And it fails as design because while it's - perhaps - trying to be ironic, it takes itself too seriously to be funny. And it's just not very functional.